Discussion of current legal issues

I just read an interesting experiment done at the at the Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences. In the study, participants could freely decide if they wanted to press a button with their right or left hand. The only condition was that they had to remember when they made the decision to either use their right hand or left hand. Using fMRI, researchers would scan the brains of the participants while all of this was going on in order to find out if they could in fact predict which hand the participants would use BEFORE they were consciously aware of the decision. Apparently this is confirmation of the same type of study by Benjamin Libet in the 1970s using EEG electrodes attached to the brain. Result? By monitoring the micro patterns of activity in the frontopolar cortex, the researchers could predict which hand the participant would choose 7 SECONDS before the participant was aware of the decision. “Your decisions are strongly prepared by brain activity. By the time consciousness kicks in, most of the work has already been done,” said study co-author John-Dylan Haynes, a Max Planck Institute neuroscientist. I find it a bit disconcerting that decisions are made by unconscious me 7 seconds before conscious me…unconscious processes in the brain are the true initiator of volitional acts, and free will therefore plays no part in their initiation. If unconscious brain processes have already taken steps to initiate an action before consciousness is aware of any desire to perform it, the causal role of consciousness in volition is all but eliminated. As one researcher said, conscious experience takes some time to build up and is much too slow to be responsible for making things happen!

Throughout history it has often been assumed that lying can be detected by examining changes in bodily activity - but we are actually deceiving ourselves if we believe there will ever be an error-free way of detecting deception. Polygraph tests in particular should not be ascribed special status.Of course polygraph tests are currently used in criminal investigations in the US. However, in a criminal case, when someone’s liberty is at stake, a polygraph is not admissible in Wisconsin. Further Wisconsin employers are not supposed to use them on employees. In a number of countries the courts have been apprehensive about admitting testimony concerning the ‘outcomes’ of polygraphic lie detection. Polygraph tests work by measuring changes in bodily activity such as heart rate, blood pressure, respiration, and palmar sweating. Three out of the four most popular lie detection procedures assume that while answering so-called ‘relevant’ questions, liars will be more aroused than while answering so- called ‘control’ questions. Yet this premise is somewhat naïve, as truth tellers may also be more aroused when answering the relevant questions, particularly when these relevant questions are emotion evoking, for example an innocent man, questioned about murdering his beloved wife, might experience strong feelings about her. An innocent examinee can also become more aroused due to fear, which may occur, for example, when the person is afraid that his or her honest answers will not be believed. In other words, your heart rate goes up, you sweat and breath heavier for reasons other than lying. Polygraphs therefore do not weed out false positives. That decision is instead left to the subjective opinion of the person giving the polygraph.Moreover, a suspect may admit having guilty knowledge but nevertheless deny guilt. This happens when the suspect admits being present but denies the specific alleged acts, for example in an alleged sexual assault where the suspect admits the sexual acts but claims that they were consensual.Most field studies have been carried out using the Control Question Test (CQT) technique, which compares responses to specific questions about the crime (relevant questions) with responses to control questions, which are expected to arouse anxiety but to a lesser extent than the relevant questions. Overall field studies show the CQT polygraph technique catches guilty suspects in 83 per cent to 89 per cent of cases. But innocent suspects do less well, with between 11 per cent and 47 per cent being classified as guilty.In light of present scientific evidence the Department of Justice continues to agree with the conclusion of the Committee on Governmental Operations of the House of Representatives, which held after extensive hearings in 1965:There is no "lie detector." The polygraph machine is not a "lie detector," nor does the operator who interprets the graphs detect "lies." The machine records physical responses which may or may not be connected with an emotional reaction--and that reaction may or may not be related to guilt or innocence. Many, many physical and psychological factors make it possible for an individual to "beat" the polygraph without detection by the machine or its operator.H.R.Rep. No. 198, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. 13 (1965). Following further hearings and study, the same conclusions were reached in 1976. The Use of Polygraphs and Similar Devices by Federal Agencies: Hearings on H.R. 795 Before the House Comm. on Government Operations, 94 Cong., 2d Sess. (1976). And in 1988, as a result of continuing doubts about the usefulness and accuracy of polygraphs as a means of detecting deceit, Congress restricted the use of polygraphs in employment decisions. 29 U.S.C. §§ 2001 et seq.